Is the Boycott of the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics an Effective Diplomatic Tool?

The 2022 Winter Olympic Games, set to take place in Beijing, China this coming February, has become a spotlight for diplomatic contention. The United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada have established what Time called a “diplomatic boycott,” meaning that the aforementioned countries will refuse to send government employees to the games. Nonetheless, athletes from each of these countries will be sent to Beijing.

The last U.S. boycott of an Olympic Games took place amidst the Cold War, as the Games in Moscow took place during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. This time, boycotting nations are openly criticizing the detention and human rights violations of China’s Uyghur ethnic group as well as the Chinese government’s repressive measures taken to quell the protest movements in Hong Kong. Moreover, the boycott emerged in light of the recent disappearance of Chinese tennis player Peng Shuai after she accused Zhang Gaoli (former Chinese vice premier) of sexual assault. The boycott thus reflects the mounting international concern regarding the abuse of fundamental rights under the current Chinese government.

There is no clear consensus on the effectiveness of the boycott, however. French President Emmanuel Macron, for instance, has dismissed the American strategy as a politicization of the Olympics devoid of “useful effect.” Macron has instead worked with the International Olympic Committee to ensure the safety of athletes, demonstrating the divergence in the French and American approaches. In the U.S., opposition to the boycott has come largely from Republicans in government who are promoting more aggressive measures, such as withholding athletes from attending the Games.

Sienna Bertamini, a first year student at the Sciences Po Menton campus who lived in Hong Kong for most of her life, suggests that, “as a form of soft power, the Olympic Boycott does very little… in terms of combating the human rights violations occurring in China.” Bertamini further notes that “China places a larger emphasis on hard power threats” and that “militaristic strategies are a greater risk to their regime,” indicating that a boycott may be little more than a performative measure. However, because strong, multilateral measures require more cooperation and consensus, the boycott may, as Bertamini states, “be the most Western countries can do without overtly shifting the global balance of power, ie. through military interventions or economic sanctions.”

What does this boycott mean for the future of Chinese-American foreign relations? A New York Times article noted that “while boycotts may not change policy, they do run the risk of reprisals.” A Chinese government publication has already demanded that China initiate a retaliatory boycott against the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics. This boycott may initiate a series of tit-for-tat soft power sanctions and may well escalate as more nations determine their respective courses of action.

- Luca Utterwulghe